Search

The European region encompasses countries with a different historical past, consequently, entailing a variety of political, legal, and cultural traditions. Despite the general commitment to the same principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms under the European Convention on Human Rights, the actual situation is marked by disputes and different approaches towards the assumed obligations occurring on both the political and constitutional level. The article addresses two main types of challenges concerning the implementation of the Convention on the level covering both the inter partes and erga omnes effects of the judgments adopted in Strasbourg. The first is the rise of political populism that is usually directed against the European standards of human rights. The second is the insufficient observance of the principle of subsidiarity by the European Court of Human Rights in some cases sensitive to the core elements of national identity of certain states, in particular those from the Central Europe. The lack of understanding of particularities of those states who share the legacy of double totalitarianism can reduce the legitimacy of the ECtHR judgments within those societies and, by the same token, strengthen the anti-European populist ideas. The article deals with the issue how constitutional courts can respond to those challenges and contribute to the implementation of the ECtHR judgments. It provides the example of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court in deciding the landmark cases relevant to the Convention law. From that example one can see that openness and determination to follow the European standards, even though the Constitution provides for its superiority over the Convention law, are the best means to harmonise two legal orders from the national perspective. The article also argues that the application of the European consensus criterion by the ECtHR should be based on a clear methodology and the subsidiary nature of the Convention mechanism should be retained. The proper respect to national, in particular constitutional, jurisdiction without compromising the Convention values is also required in increasing the legitimacy and implementation of the ECtHR judgments.

The article carries out an assessment of the “reunification of Crimea with Russia” from the point of view of contemporary international law and examines the arguments of Russian legal scholars who try to deny the annexation, i.e. the acquisition of territory by force. The assessment reveals recent changes in the interpretation of the principle of the self-determination of peoples in the Russian official position and legal doctrine, compared to the interpretation of this principle prevalent before the International Court of Justice adopted the Advisory Opinion on Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo. The analysis carried out in the article identifies the arguments and strategies that are employed in seeking to offer an interpretation of international legal norms that corresponds to the political interests of the Russian Federation. The examination reveals how new content is attached to international legal concepts in the works of Russian legal scholars who construct a position favourable to the Russian Federation, and in what way legal arguments are combined with statements and theoretical constructs that are irrelevant from the point of view of contemporary international law, thus deleting the boundaries between legal and non-legal reasoning and producing a pseudo-legal narrative that serves the political interests of Russia.

Straipsnyje pateikiamas „Krymo susivienijimo su Rusija“ vertinimas šiuolaikinės tarptautinės teisės požiūriu ir nagrinėjami argumentai, kuriuos pasitelkia aneksiją, t. y. prievartinį teritorijos prijungimą prie savosios teritorijos, neigiantys Rusijos teisės mokslininkai. Atskleidžiama, kaip pakito Rusijos oficiali pozicija ir teisės doktrina dėl tautų teisės į apsisprendimą turinio, palyginti su šio principo aiškinimu, dominavusiu prieš JT Tarptautiniam Teisingumo Teismui paskelbiant konsultacinę išvadą „Dėl Kosovo vienašalio nepriklausomybės paskelbimo atitikties tarptautinei teisei“. Taip pat nustatomos argumentavimo strategijos, kurios pasitelkiamos siekiant pateikti Rusijos Federacijos politiniams interesams palankų tarptautinės teisės normų aiškinimą. Atskleidžiama, kaip Rusijos Federacijai palankią poziciją kuriančių Rusijos teisės mokslininkų darbuose tarptautinės teisės sąvokoms suteikiamas naujas turinys, teisiniai argumentai derinami su šiuolaikinės tarptautinės teisės požiūriu irelevantiškais teiginiais ir teoriniais konstruktais, taip ištrinant ribas tarp teisinės ir neteisinės argumentacijos bei formuluojant Rusijos politiniams interesams naudingą pseudoteisinį naratyvą. This article provides the assessment of the "Crimean union with Russia" in the context of modern international law and analyses the Russian legal scientists' arguments denying annexation, i. e. the forcible acquisition of a territory of one state to the other. It is revealed, how the official position of Russia and its doctrine on the content of nation's right to self-determination, changed compared to the predominant interpretation of this principle before the International Court of Justice of the UN delivered its advisory opinion on the "Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence In Respect of Kosovo". The argumentation strategies, used in order to provide an interpretation of the provisions of international law, favourable to the political interests of Russian Federation, are also identified. It is discovered, how in the works of Russian legal scientists, the concepts of international law are portrayed in the new light, legal arguments are combined with theoretical constructs and claims, irrelevant in terms of modern international law, therefore erasing the confines between legal and non-legal argumentation and formulating pseudo-legal narrative, beneficial to Russian political interests.

Šiame straipsnyje analizuojama 1991 m. liepos 29 d. Lietuvos Respublikos sutartis dėl tarpvalstybinių santykių pagrindų su Rusijos Federacija. Svarbiausios jos nuostatos yra susijusios su atkūrusios nepriklausomybę Lietuvos Respublikos tarptautinio teisinio statuso pripažinimu pagal 1990 m. kovo 11 d. aktus ir Lietuvos Respublikos saugumo garantijų įtvirtinimu. Sutartimi Rusijos Federacija pripažino SSRS įvykdytos agresijos (įskaitant aneksiją) prieš Lietuvos Respubliką faktą, Lietuvos Respublikos tęstinumą ir tapatumą 1918 m. vasario 16 d. Nepriklausomybės aktu įsteigtai Lietuvos valstybei. Taip pat pripažinta Lietuvos Respublikos teisė laisvai pasirinkti saugumo garantijas, tarp jų ir narystę NATO. Šiais aspektais Lietuvos tarpvalstybinių santykių pagrindų sutartis su Rusija yra unikali: tokios sutarties su Rusija neturi nei Latvija ir Estija, nei juo labiau buvusios sovietinės respublikos. Apskritai Lietuvos ir Rusijos tarpvalstybinių santykių sutartis daug prisidėjo prie tarptautinės teisės viršenybės tarptautiniuose santykiuose įtvirtinimo, tebeišlaiko didžiulį potencialą plėtojant draugiškus šalių santykius remiantis tarptautine teise ir teisingumu. This article deals with the Treaty on Fundamentals of Interstate Relations between the Republic of Lithuania and the Russian Federation, which was signed on 29 July 1991. It higlights the unique circumstances of 1991 that allowed to conclude this Treaty, when both parties had the coinciding interest to support each other against the Soviet leadership. These circumstances predetermined the unique content of the Treaty on Fundamentals of Interstate Relations: neither Latvia or Estonia, nor any former Soviet republic has achieved the treaty with Russia, in which the latter recognised the illegality of the 1940 Soviet aggression (including the annexation of Lithuania) as well as the continuity of the Republic of Lithuania and its identity with the State of Lithuania proclaimed by the Act of Independence of 16 February 1918. Therefore, the provision of the preamble of the Treaty, which mentions the illegality of the 1940 Soviet annexation, and Article 1 of the Treaty, according to which the Republic of Lithuania has been recognised under its legal status as defined by the acts on restoration of independence of 11 March 1990, are identified as the fundamental provisions of the Treaty. They also mean that, under the Treaty, Russia has acknowledged that Lithuania is not a state successor to the Soviet Union as well as the fact that Lithuania had been illegally occupied (had never been a legitimate part of the USSR) and liberated itself from the Soviet occupation (rather than seceded from the Soviet Union) in 1990. This precludes Russia from questioning the legality of the Lithuanian statehood and glorifying 1940 Soviet aggression against Lithuania. That is why, the current Russian leadership is tending to conceal the Treaty on Fundamentals of Interstate Relations with Lithuania by not showing the Treaty in the list of international treaties of the Russian Federation, which is administered by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, although the Treaty remains in force and its fundamental Article 1 is of irrevicable nature. One more important provision of the Treaty deserves to be mentioned: under Article 2 Russia has recognised Lithuania‘s freedom to choose security guarantees, including collective defence systems. This provision has proved to be effective in responding to Russia‘s attempts to preclude Lithuania‘ s membership in NATO. To sum it up, the 1991 Lithuanian-Russian Treaty on Fundamentals of Interstate Relations can be assessed as a significant contribution to the strengthening rule of law in international relations. It still preserves huge potential for the development of friendly relations between Lithuania and Russia on the basis of international law, historical truth and justice, the sincere acknowledgment of sovereign equality and mutial respect of parties.

Šiame straipsnyje 1922 m. Lietuvos Valstybės Konstitucija, pasitelkus jos parengiamąją medžiagą, nagrinėjama trijų esminių demokratinius valstybės pagrindus atskleidžiančių konstitucinių principų – Konstitucijos viršenybės, pagarbos žmogaus teisėms ir laisvėms bei valdžių padalijimo – įtvirtinimo aspektais. Pabrėžiami jų įtvirtinimo pranašumai tuomečiu laikotarpiu, taip pat nurodomi jų įtvirtinimo trūkumai žvelgiant iš nūdienos perspektyvos. Argumentuojama, kad 1922 m. Konstitucijoje glūdi šiuolaikinės Lietuvos valstybės konstitucinių demokratinių tradicijų ištakos. Iš 1922 m. Konstitucijos galiojančioje Konstitucijoje buvo perimta parlamentinės respublikos tradicija, taip pat vertingiausi pirmiau išvardytų principų elementai, pakoreguoti 1922 m. konstitucinio reguliavimo trūkumai. This article analyses the 1922 Constitution of the State of Lithuania according to its travaux préparatoires in terms of the features characterising the consolidation of three principles – principles of the supremacy of the Constitution, respect for human rights, and the separation of powers. It highlights the merits along with shortcomings of their consolidation in the light of the then period and the present-day perspective based on the 1992 Constitution currently in force. The 1922 Constitution of the State of Lithuania is the only democratically enacted Constitution of pre-war constitutional heritage to have consolidated democratic content and to have put into effect both fundamental principles of statehood – independence and democracy – proclaimed in Lithuania’s Act of Independence of 16 February 1918. Therefore, it is precisely the 1922 Constitution that laid down the beginnings of the constitutional democratic traditions of the modern Republic of Lithuania. From the 1922 Constitution, the 1992 Constitution currently in force adopted the tradition of the parliamentary republic, as well as the most valued elements of the principles of the supremacy of the Constitution, respect for human rights, and the separation of powers. The shortcomings of the 1922 Constitution of the State of Lithuania were resolved in the 1992 Constitution. Įteikta 2017

This article studies influence of international legal norms on the Ukrainian Constitution. Special attention is given to the provisions of Article 9 of the Constitution which regulates the implementation of international treaties in the legal system of Ukraine. The creation and main directions of activity of the Constitutional Assembly are analyzed. The author arrived at the conclusion that the main drawback of the current Constitution is the declarative nature of some constitutional provisions.

Although independence of judiciary has become a universal principle, but in practice it is still sometimes subject to challenges. As the mission of the judiciary is to ensure legitimacy by defending human rights from arbitrary acts of other branches of state power, there is inevitable tension between the judiciary and other branches of state government. The executive and the legislature may sometimes seek to influence the court in various ways – influencing the selection and appointment of judges, decreasing the remuneration and other social benefits of judges, expressing will to limit the powers of the judiciary, refusing to implement judicial decisions or ignoring them. These and other threats to independence of the judicial are likely to increase during the economic crisis when the society suffers from asperities and is full of tensions. In order to achieve economic stabilization, human rights and freedoms, and its most significant protection guarantee – the independence of the judiciary, are often pushed to the background. Therefore it is often claimed that one of the consequences of the global economic recession is a global human rights crisis. The subject of this article is the specific challenges of the economic crisis of 2088–2012 in Lithuania posed to the main elements of the principle of judicial independence: independence of individual judges and institutional independence of the judiciary. These challenges are mostly related to two types of tension: the tension between law and politics, which arose due to verification and outlawing by the judiciary of some decisions of political power on the measures to overcome the economic crisis, and the tension between law and society, which arose due to the fact that the society not always accepted (or even was encouraged not to accept) the decisions of the judiciary assessing the legality of the measures taken by political power to overcome the economic crisis. This article aims to assess the impact of the economic crisis to the independence of the judiciary. The research done in this article seeks to verify the hypothesis that the guarantees of judicial independence (and human right to judicial defense) are diminished during the economic recession. The research was conducted by applying analytical, systematic, comparative, descriptive and quantitative analysis research methods. This research led to the conclusion that economic crisis threatened both the said elements of the principle of independence of the judiciary. The reduction of the most important social guarantees of a judge (salary, pension), i.e. the concrete measures found incompatible with the Constitution, can be regarded as an encroachment to the (procedural) independence of the judge. Reduced funding for the courts, taking into account the increased workload of the courts, as well as the reduced social guarantees of judges, can be seen as disproportionate anti-crisis measure that threatened the institutional independence of the judiciary. In addition to these challenges, the Constitutional Court due to its special role in assessing the anti-crisis measures also had to face significantly increased criticism by the representatives of the political branch of state government, which could be seen as a certain pressure on the Constitutional Court in the decision making process. Apart from that, these economic crisis challenges to independence of the judiciary has certainly influenced the public’s perception of the entire judiciary system and reduced public confidence in the judiciary, hence this situation has posed an immense threat to the appearance of independence of the judiciary. However, it should be noted, that the economic crisis has also lead to some positive reforms in the judicial system, which might not have been taken in a different situation – the adoption of procedural and other changes in the legislation, which was intended to promote the efficiency of judicial procedure, as well as the reorganization of some district courts, which helped to optimize the resources of those courts, and the inclusion of the representatives from the society into the activities of the judiciary system. Thus the above mentioned hypothesis has been confirmed in part, i.e. apart from the typical threats to the judicial independence, the economic crisis also opened some opportunities to optimize the judiciary activities increasing efficiency of judicial defense.

During the global economic crisis, many European countries faced the necessity to apply the austerity measures that involved the reduction of salaries, pensions and other social benefits paid by a state. Austerity has become a difficult challenge in particular to those states who have declared in their constitutions the social orientation of a state or even a social state. The Republic of Lithuania is one of those states: according to its Constitution, the State of Lithuania is socially oriented, it has to undertake certain commitments to the most vulnerable social groups.Lithuania was one of those states who has suffered from the most negative impact of the economic and financial crisis and who, therefore, has applied the drastic austerity measures. Thus, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania had in particular difficult task – while assessing the constitutionality of the austerity measures in the circumstances of a deep economic and financial crisis, to balance different constitutional values: stability of public finances and the social orientation of the State implying guarantees of social and economic rights. Considering this, one can see the experience of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania in assessing austerity measures as unique and interesting at the European level.The subject of this article – the official constitutional doctrine formulated by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania concerning the so-called austerity measures aiming to manage and to overcome economic and financial crisis within a state. The aim of the research is to identify and analyse the criteria of constitutionality of austerity measures. The research was conducted mostly by applying analytical, systematic, comparative and descriptive research methods.This article analyses the following criteria of constitutionality of austerity measures, which have to be observed respecting human rights and social orientation of the State, as consolidated in the Constitution: constitutionally justifiable basis of austerity measures, their necessity, temporal character, proportionality, as well as due regard to the limits of discretion of the legislature, the principles of social solidarity and non-discrimination, the duty to compensate certain losses. The article focuses on specific features of these criteria as far as they concern austerity measures. For example, the financial assessment of the situation in the State usually does not fall within constitutional jurisdiction; therefore, the Constitutional Court ought to abstain from assessing the compatibility of austerity measures with the first three criteria – constitutionally justifiable basis of austerity measures, their necessity and temporal character, i.e. the Court ought to rely on the assessment of the State economy made by the legislature (and the executive) and not to interfere into the matters of substance and expediency of decisions on economic policy. There are two specific aspects of the principle of proportionality in assessing the constitutionality of austerity measures, as indicated in the article: the first one is the requirement not to distort by the austerity measures the proportions of salaries and pensions established before their reductions; the second one is the requirement not to restrict other constitutional rights than those directly restricted by the austerity measures in question. One can read also about three specific requirements for constitutionality of austerity measures, which follow from the principles of social solidarity and non-discrimination: 1) overall and non-discriminative character of austerity measures; 2) the positive discrimination of the most vulnerable social groups; 3) the austerity measures cannot aim at the establishment of egalitarianism.The main conclusion made in this article is that the criteria of constitutionality of austerity measures, as formulated in the official constitutional doctrine of the Republic of Lithuania, are grounded on the general criteria of legality of the restrictions of human rights, as provided by international law, as well as they are in essence identical to the criteria of constitutionality of austerity measures which have been formulated by other European constitutional courts. Therefore, one may see a certain unity in diversity in this field, i.e. one of the elements of European constitutional identity.

International audience